|
On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along.
I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.
I don't really pity him if that's his mindset. The wife should work as well. He should have saved up more money. He shouldn't have accrued 40k in loans for a teaching degree. And if your internship thing was true, if he planned on investing 40k into a degree, he should have took the damn time to see the prerequisites to get a job afterwards. You're telling me he only found out after he invested years of his time and substantial amounts of money what the market is like afterwards? That's pure stupidity, straight and simple.
It's not like he pays virtually any taxes or anything if he's working full time at $15/hr as a sole earner and has a spouse that doesn't work with two children. In fact, he's probably receiving welfare at that level. Part of it is on him to plan his life better and not mindlessly go down a certain path with no clear objective.
|
On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+.
even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)
|
On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+. even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all)
Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering).
|
Part of it also has to do with having high school kids make decisions on their career early on. Hell, even people in university can barely get a grip on their career choice.
|
On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+. even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all) Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering).
it depends on who you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors (mostly ones that want to teach high school) who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis.
as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes? certainly i feel it is more difficult than say accounting, or management majors (who will probably make more than them).
generally i think proof based courses are far harder than applied ones are, so that may be my bias.
|
On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...)
But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.
I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.
|
On December 13 2012 06:17 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+. even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all) Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering). it depends on what you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis. as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes?
You mean in the logic based courses?
It's all relative. Those are probably (and this is entirely an assumption) the hardest classes one would have to take. Just like people don't think Economics is that hard, but Econ majors at my school still have to take a few Econometrics courses, which can be extremely challenging (only courses I really struggled with myself). Honestly though, I wasn't aware "Mathematics Education" was a major. But if it is, it's not unreasonable at all to be expected to take math classes?
From what I'm aware the logic courses are not extremely in depth. Even if they are, I'm not sure how relevant the pay scale is to the discussion. Is your argument that they should be paid more? You do realize the average starting salary out of college is ~$32-38k, although this is probably due to an averaging of lowering paying $12-15/hr jobs and the higher $20-30/hr jobs.
|
On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case).
I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol.
Or rather, his ability to work in the future.
The student earnings potential is the colleteral.
I guess when that potential would drop dramatically, the loans might be a problem, and will probably be defaulted.
Off topic rant:
They making everyone into slaves.
So manny people who worked all their live, yet they have a negative net worth due to buying a house at the wrong time in a crazy inflating/deflating cycle.
Imagine this, your 40 and worked all your life like crazy, and yet you still own less then nothing.
Some students will go the same way, working till they 50 and still having a student debt and a mortgage.
They still own nothing and are more poor then the first hobo you meet on the street who has no debts at all.
It realy is a shame what they are doing to the people
|
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students.
wouldn't the best professors opt to focus even more time on doing research that not only increases their resume value, earning potential, and reputation?
|
On December 13 2012 06:23 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. wouldn't the best professors opt to focus even more time on doing research that not only increases their resume value, earning potential, and reputation?
The very best professors that have a tenured position or have a chance to get one would. But in many universities tenured positions are getting eliminated and replaced by casual research only and casual teaching only positions, so you do either one or the other are paid only if you do it far better then others.
|
On December 13 2012 06:22 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:17 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+. even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all) Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering). it depends on what you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis. as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes? You mean in the logic based courses? It's all relative. Those are probably (and this is entirely an assumption) the hardest classes one would have to take. Just like people don't think Economics is that hard, but Econ majors at my school still have to take a few Econometrics courses, which can be extremely challenging (only courses I really struggled with myself). Honestly though, I wasn't aware "Mathematics Education" was a major. But if it is, it's not unreasonable at all to be expected to take math classes? From what I'm aware the logic courses are not extremely in depth. Even if they are, I'm not sure how relevant the pay scale is to the discussion. Is your argument that they should be paid more? You do realize the average starting salary out of college is ~$32-38k, although this is probably due to an averaging of lowering paying $12-15/hr jobs and the higher $20-30/hr jobs.
isn't the point of education to increase the pool of students who have better developed skills? mathematics education in this country is ridic bad i think precisely because there is not good incentive structure for talented people who are good at both the technical knowledge and expressing that knowledge to other individuals. i know for a fact that I do well in many of those courses not because the teacher is 'so good', but because i'm good at teaching myself new things. i generally only go to class as a survey of the material and to ask very specific questions (and of course to pick up participation points if there are any or to pick up things that may not be in the book (usually very few, but can't rule out that possibility.
there will always be students who will succeed not matter how bad the course is...i think it does a disservice to students as a whole if the classroom is structured so that most pass through without grasping the concepts that are supposed to be taught to them, and the few who would have done good, do good anyways.
i'm not sure how the whole mathematics education thing works out, I just remember being quite surprised that ANY of my fellow classmates were education majors
|
On December 13 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case). I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol. Or rather, his ability to work in the future. The student is the colleteral.
No, it would be the debt obligation. Think of it like a bond. Student loan debt has a value to whoever the debt is owed to.
If I owe you $1,000, you have an intangible asset. You have something owed to you. You'll receive interest payments from me and the principal $1,000 loaned out as well, meaning the value of the loan is in theory more than $1,000. At the same time, the value of the loan is reduced by various factors, such as inflation, present/future value differences (also interest rate flucutations in the market), and the chance you'll default on the loan.
Compounded with this is the need to maintain the loan (aka administrative expenses) and the need for a profit.
Student loans are slightly different, since you supposedly can't default on them. Regardless, the many factors listed can reduce the value of the loans that the banks (or whoever has the intangible assets) have. Say you could default on the loan. If many people default, not only will they lose the stream of income from these loans, but they'll also have severe decrease in value of the remaining assets, as they will drop in value as their perceived riskiness rises.
|
On December 13 2012 06:28 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:22 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 06:17 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 06:12 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 06:08 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 06:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 04:47 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 01:18 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 17:02 hp.Shell wrote:
This could potentially go on for a lot longer period of time (repay postponement), in fact it could go on indefinitely if the "student" remains enrolled in a university One thing to point out, although it doesn't invalidate your point, is that the un-subsidized portion of any loans will continue to accrue interest during this long period of being a student. My brother subscribes to this methodology of dealing with his loan and your point doesn't matter. -He got 40k in loans to get his teaching degree. -He discovered that in order to get a teaching license in California, you basically have to be an intern for 2 years. -He can't afford to take 2 years off from getting paid as he is the sole earner in his family at around $15/hr with a wife and 2 daughters. -He can't afford to pay back his loans -Therefore, his ONLY option is to continue taking on student loans and continue going to school for free. What happens when the house of cards falls down? A broke man goes broke. Nothing to see here, move along. I know four separate teachers in CA that I went to undergrad with, all went into full time teaching the moment they graduated, none had 2 year internships. They are all elementary/middle school teachers. One of them I am close friends to. I believe they teach at private schools as opposed to public schools, if that's relevant, but they are still teachers nonetheless making around ~$40k+. even worse more talented teachers who want to educate in secondary education (high school) often have the requirement to take close to teh same courseload as math/sci majors (lol they have to take more proof based math courses than I do), yet they are lucky to make even half of what my degree will eventually make (if they can even find a job at all) Course load for an education degree is not hard whatsoever at UCI. Not sure what it's like at other schools, but it's not a hard major at all. I took a few midterms of my friend, with know prior knowledge of the class, in my free time and scored a B- and C+ on the two (they were able to keep copies of the midterms). Math/Sci majors have it ridiculous at UCI though, so maybe it's a bad comparison when the school is heavily weighted towards the sciences (and somewhat engineering). it depends on what you want to educate. i know several mathematics education majors who have to take the exact same calculus courses as engineering/sciences (in fact they even have to take proof based linear, and linear II (things that aren't required for engineering), and a intro to real analysis. as a whole yes, it isn't as difficult as engineering (since the rest of their courseload is more broad based, or they have to take lot of education courses as well), but i would say if such a student could excel at the aforementioned courses, they certainly have the mental capacity to pursue a better paying field yes? You mean in the logic based courses? It's all relative. Those are probably (and this is entirely an assumption) the hardest classes one would have to take. Just like people don't think Economics is that hard, but Econ majors at my school still have to take a few Econometrics courses, which can be extremely challenging (only courses I really struggled with myself). Honestly though, I wasn't aware "Mathematics Education" was a major. But if it is, it's not unreasonable at all to be expected to take math classes? From what I'm aware the logic courses are not extremely in depth. Even if they are, I'm not sure how relevant the pay scale is to the discussion. Is your argument that they should be paid more? You do realize the average starting salary out of college is ~$32-38k, although this is probably due to an averaging of lowering paying $12-15/hr jobs and the higher $20-30/hr jobs. isn't the point of education to increase the pool of students who have better developed skills? mathematics education in this country is ridic bad i think precisely because there is not good incentive structure for talented people who are good at both the technical knowledge and expressing that knowledge to other individuals. i know for a fact that I do well in many of those courses not because the teacher is 'so good', but because i'm good at teaching myself new things. i generally only go to class as a survey of the material and to ask very specific questions (and of course to pick up participation points if there are any or to pick up things that may not be in the book (usually very few, but can't rule out that possibility. i'm not sure how the whole mathematics education thing works out, I just remember being quite surprised that a lot my fellow classmates were education majors
Sorry, I'm not sure where you're really going towards with your posts.... I'm at work on my lunch break, which just ended, so I probably didn't have time to adequately read.....
|
Yes but that intangible asset, the debt, is backed by a tangible asset, wich is the student earnings potential?
The same way a mortgage is backed by the house.
Or am i missing something simple?
|
On December 13 2012 06:29 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote:On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case). I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol. Or rather, his ability to work in the future. The student is the colleteral. No, it would be the debt obligation. Think of it like a bond. Student loan debt has a value to whoever the debt is owed to. If I owe you $1,000, you have an intangible asset. You have something owed to you. You'll receive interest payments from me and the principal $1,000 loaned out as well, meaning the value of the loan is in theory more than $1,000. At the same time, the value of the loan is reduced by various factors, such as inflation, present/future value differences (also interest rate flucutations in the market), and the chance you'll default on the loan. Compounded with this is the need to maintain the loan (aka administrative expenses) and the need for a profit. Student loans are slightly different, since you supposedly can't default on them. Regardless, the many factors listed can reduce the value of the loans that the banks (or whoever has the intangible assets) have. Say you could default on the loan. If many people default, not only will they lose the stream of income from these loans, but they'll also have severe decrease in value of the remaining assets, as they will drop in value as their perceived riskiness rises.
that most of the money going into education is for consumption purposes and not investment. most of the increase in dollars goes towards not providing a better education for students or making sure professors are teaching people in a better way, but towards conspicuous consumption ( better reputation, better facilities that only a fraction of students actually end up using) etc....
sorry quoted wrong post.
as a whole you need smart people to be able to pursue fields that aren't necessarily financially rewarding (well at least how things are set up now). why would anyone in their right mind pursue education, if they have the skills to do something that pays better.
if you follow the argument that better pay results in better performance (a very specious argument in of itself, but one that current economic is based on), then yes, at least that money should be used to increase who well students are taught (whether that be professor pay, setting it up so that professors have a better incentive to teach, provididing facilities that are useful for students to succeed etc..., not towards the increasing costs associated with administratiion, reputation (based on faulty measures), etc...
|
On December 13 2012 06:33 Rassy wrote:
Yes but that intangible asset, the debt, is backed by a tangible asset, wich is the student earnings potential?
The same way a mortgage is backed by the house.
Or am i missing something simple?
I don't really understand why someone would say "earning potential" is a tangible asset...
A house is tangible because it is an physical object. Possibility of student getting good salary is not because it is only a probability and not a very ensuring one too.
|
On December 13 2012 06:33 Rassy wrote:
Yes but that intangible asset, the debt, is backed by a tangible asset, wich is the student earnings potential?
The same way a mortgage is backed by the house.
Or am i missing something simple?
Earning potential is irrelevant in this case, unless you're trying to string it to a manner of "ability to pay back loan" which I already addressed in likelihood of default.
"Earning potential" is not collateral, although if you're not paying technically they can garnish your wages...
On December 13 2012 06:36 dreamsmasher wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:29 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 13 2012 06:22 Rassy wrote:On December 12 2012 10:31 Skeltons wrote:
Can someone with a good grasp on economic theory attempt to describe how this bubble would burst? The subprime mortgage crisis dealt with tangible assets such as houses, cars, land, etc and massive overleverization, but this bubble does not seem to have tangible assets aside from an item that would occasionally be required to be put down as a security for mortgage (or loan in this case). I dont have a good grasp on economic theory, but the tangible asset in this case is the student lol. Or rather, his ability to work in the future. The student is the colleteral. No, it would be the debt obligation. Think of it like a bond. Student loan debt has a value to whoever the debt is owed to. If I owe you $1,000, you have an intangible asset. You have something owed to you. You'll receive interest payments from me and the principal $1,000 loaned out as well, meaning the value of the loan is in theory more than $1,000. At the same time, the value of the loan is reduced by various factors, such as inflation, present/future value differences (also interest rate flucutations in the market), and the chance you'll default on the loan. Compounded with this is the need to maintain the loan (aka administrative expenses) and the need for a profit. Student loans are slightly different, since you supposedly can't default on them. Regardless, the many factors listed can reduce the value of the loans that the banks (or whoever has the intangible assets) have. Say you could default on the loan. If many people default, not only will they lose the stream of income from these loans, but they'll also have severe decrease in value of the remaining assets, as they will drop in value as their perceived riskiness rises. that most of the money going into education is for consumption purposes and not investment. most of the increase in dollars goes towards not providing a better education for students or making sure professors are teaching people in a better way, but towards conspicuous consumption ( better reputation, better facilities that only a fraction of students actually end up using) etc.... sorry quoted wrong post. as a whole you need smart people to be able to pursue fields that aren't necessarily financially rewarding (well at least how things are set up now). why would anyone in their right mind pursue education, if they have the skills to do something that pays better. if you follow the argument that better pay results in better performance (a very specious argument in of itself, but one that current economic is based on), then yes, at least that money should be used to increase who well students are taught (whether that be professor pay, setting it up so that professors have a better incentive to teach, provididing facilities that are useful for students to succeed etc..., not towards the increasing costs associated with administratiion, reputation (based on faulty measures), etc...
Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).
|
It should be illegal to charge so much money for education. Honestly, there are very few countries that get it right, from what I remember Denmark is one of them. Students receive some money for studying there, as studying is a job. You're giving up on the option of working now and invest time and energy in your future, you should not be punished extra by being forced into debt-slavery.
|
On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another.
...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part?
Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you).
Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.
|
On December 13 2012 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 06:21 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 06:00 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 13 2012 05:49 Alex1Sun wrote:On December 13 2012 05:36 dreamsmasher wrote:On December 12 2012 12:10 micronesia wrote:On December 12 2012 12:07 OsoVega wrote:
Stop guaranteeing student loans, and students won't be able to bid up tuition prices to the point where everyone needs a loan to go to university. Is there evidence which shows that the federal involvement in student loans is what causes tuition to be so high? Regardless, if your suggestion was enacted I wonder how many innocent students would get screwed by it even though they were actually going to get a good job and pay back their loan after graduating. quite a bit actually, most of the money from tuition hikes doesn't even go towards better education, they go towards administrators and building the 'reputation' of schools. however students benefit disproportionately from 'reputation'. for example i go to a top 10 ranked engineering/business school, most of that money goes into making sure students like myself get better paying jobs etc... (indirectly), yet as a collective, myself (and people like me) represent only a fraction of people who attend school -- yet we all pay the same tuition. administrators also make FAR more than professors do, and many times have zero background in education or anything education related. and with how tenureship incentive structures work (most professors don't give a shit about teaching, since it is unimportant towards obtaining money or tenureship). i've always felt this was extremely obvious, --anyone who has sat in an upper division math/science course is going to realize a) there are hardly any Americans in your class b) there are a substantial number of these classes that are very poorly taught by very bright professors who just clearly care more about research than teaching --> yet REPUTATION of the school is linked to research results, not teaching ability. This is changing now. Tenured positions are getting eliminated from universities across US. Most schools now mostly have adjunct professors who are only involved in teaching. They earn $2000-4000 per course per year (which results in $15000-$35000 annual salary for those who teach multiple courses in several universities). Many universities now also have research professors. They do not teach, but have zero salary. They apply for annual research grants, which require a couple of months to prepare an application, and then there is %10-%20 probability to get a grant. If they fail to get a grant (most do fail), then they do not get paid and have to work for free in hopes of getting another grant. Both types of professors often have supplementary part-time jobs as waiters etc. This trend is quickly growing. only furthers my point thank you some anecdotal evidence but in both my upper division stat classes Americans make up less than 10% of the classroom and in one of the classes, the professor literally just presented proofs that any textbook could have shown me, and i think attendance was something like 30% (I rarely went myself). this isn't because students are 'lazy' or 'unmotivated', but more due to the fact that 1) the professor rarely actually sets times that are within students ability to meet 2) he doesn't even answer EMAILS (i actually received an email saying too busy can't respond, and there were several no shows when I had previously set a meeting time). there were also zero quizzes, zero tests (only weekly homework and a final). the professor is actually a really smart guy (quite apparent, he won some sort of distinguished award for research), and this has been going on (from what i've heard from students who had taken the class before). this isn't an isolated incident either, anyone who has been in engineering at any top research university can attest to the same situation. i probably got an A in teh course, but not because of the class (independent study, video lectures from free sources like MIT opencourseware etc...) But that is exactly the thing, which is getting eliminated now in many universities in US. Most teaching professors now are adjunct professors who only get paid as long as students like their course a lot. If the survey shows that the course given by a professor if not entertaining and enlightening, an adjunct professor is fired immediately. It is very easy to find a better professor with so many of them without a job. A university also pays an adjunct professor on average 5-7 times less than a tenured professor with the same teaching load, so a university can even lower a tuition fee or invest money in other areas. That's great for students. I am sorry if it wasn't the case in your university. It still differs from one institution to another. ...And horrible for professors? Are we just forgetting that part? Show nested quote +Because it isn't as demanding of a profession compared to other ones. You do not have to be very smart to adequately perform the duties of an elementary school teacher. Probably more important is the having traits of patience and empathy. In fact, having someone very smart become a third grade math teacher is a waste of talent imo. Teachers need a different skillset anyways, mostly that of people skills/patience/empathy/charisma/ability to get ideas across.
You're talking about a job that generally works 8AM - 3:30PM with large breaks throughout the day, significantly more days off than a typical job, a tenured position of job security, very strong retirement benefits, and a massive summer break. The summer break itself means that they work 2 less months of the year than other professions, meaning their salary rightfully so should be ~10/12 of an equivalently demanding profession, or 83%. Meaning if they worked full time and made an equivalent amount, their salary would, instead of ~$40k, be closer to ~$48k.
Of course, teachers bring their work home and have to plan ahead, which once again takes lots of skills not necessary intellectually demanding, but rather time management based. But then again, almost ANY job that starts at $50k upon graduation is going to have you working a little bit more than the standard 40 hours. Take accountants, who have the busy season and work 70-80 hour weeks, if not more. Take consultants, who work 60-80 hours per week standard, not just during a "busy season." It's not like teachers are the only ones that bring their work home, which is why I also have less sympathy for those who work only 40 hours a week or so.
As it is, people already pursue education because it's an easy major, enjoyable job, tons of benefits, lots of time off, it's an interactive nondesk job, is free from the corporate demands of other options, requires different skillsets, and is more time management demanding than intellectually demanding (in short, if you're not ridiculously ambitious or not super smart, education is a solid option for you). Your picture of what a job in education entails is grossly inaccurate.
In what sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
